How Many Has God Killed?

[Anomalocaris]

It is a funny thing about evidence. All we have is words to convey the idea or meaning of what we say. Apparently, you are looking for a sign. If you saw one, would you call that evidence? You could still reason that away too. God can give physical evidences if you like. Ask Him for the proof. I don't have any power to manifest to you from a distance. I've already told you how to get your evidence. ASK! I'm not God. Get specific and ask with a sincere request. Your best response will happen if you have someone elses interests to benefit too. When you get your answer, let me know. I love sharing miracles that other people have had happen to them. I'm not the only one who has experienced these things. Test this yourself. If you are honestly needing to know, you will have your proof, O.K.?

We applied a better method that you could ever dream of in asking him for proof of his existence, what we got is indistinguishable from what we would get if he didn't exist. Now fuck off.

[Eleazar]

What kind have you got?

Well on my view, every proof depends on God's existence. If downbeatplumb thinks there is such a thing as a proof that doesn't depend on God's existence he is begging the question.

[Anomalocaris]

Spare me the greasy sophistry. A proof either establishes god's existence without assuming god's existence, or else it says nothing whatsoever about god's existence. What proof have you got?

[Cinjin]

Spare me the greasy sophistry. A proof either establishes god's existence without assuming god's existence, or else it says nothing whatsoever about god's existence. What proof have you got?

greasy sophistry I don't think I've ever heard that expression. I'm gonna steal that.

[Eleazar]

Spare me the greasy sophistry. A proof either establishes god's existence without assuming god's existence, or else it says nothing whatsoever about god's existence. What proof have you got?

It's not sophistry, it's just a specific case of the general view that everything that exists depends on God's existence. If there is such a thing as a proof that does not depend on God's existence, then this general view is false. You demand me to give you a proof of my view, yet if such a proof existed its existence would be inconsistent with the view itself...in other words, it is a demand that logically cannot be met.

[reverendjeremiah]

It's not sophistry, it's just a specific case of the general view that everything that exists depends on God's existence. If there is such a thing as a proof that does not depend on God's existence, then this general view is false. You demand me to give you a proof of my view, yet if such a proof existed its existence would inconsistent with the view itself...in other words, it is a demand that logically cannot be met.

No, I disagree. Loki has tricked your mind. This is a specific case of the general view that everything that exists depends on Woden's existence. If there is such a thing as a proof that does not depend on Woden's existence, then this general view is false. You demand me to give you a proof of my view, yet if such a proof existed its existence would inconsistent with the view itself...in other words, it is a demand that logically cannot be met.

when will they learn that all special pleading and all arguments for THEIR god also work for OTHER gods and goddesses as well?

[Minimalist]

If you saw one, would you call that evidence?

Depends on the sign.

In this case...




Most likely not.

[Eleazar]

when will they learn that all special pleading and all arguments for THEIR god also work for OTHER gods and goddesses as well?

The problem is that it doesn't work for Woden, because on Anglo-Saxon polytheism not everything depends on Woden's existence - there are other gods (like Thunor and Tiw) whose existence does not depend on Woden's. What's more, the view that everything depends on Woden is not a view that you actually hold.

[Anomalocaris]

I think we have a tolerably good idea of the rigor with which Eleazar approach this question, and the value of what he thinks he's discovered.

[RDK]

If you do not consider a challenge to ask god for yourself for your proof, then how can you guys say there isn't any? Nothing I say is making any impact on you. Rather than pick apart my semantics, try to understand the gist of the discussion. You say no, I say yes. We both have valid arguments to believe what we do. Unfortunately, If you have not found something to exist yet, it because you have not looked hard enough. Just making some observations of some physical things is no proof to the contrary. It's just that you guys gave up looking. Don't get pissed at me because you won't try my challenge. The real problem is that you can not prove me wrong. It is too easy to say something does not exist just since you can't comprehend it, or even want to.